Re: SIXXS contact
Op 27-4-2011 0:38, Andrew Kirch schreef: On 4/26/2011 12:11 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: I've run a volunteer/free hosting service since 1997 or so - it never ceases to amaze me how people will complain about free things, but when you ask them to pony up a little monthly support its like you killed their puppy. I just term people who are more of a hassle then they are worth. I'm not complaining, but I would point out that if these free brokers are the public face of IPv6 for many hobbyists (and much of the various software run on/over the internet is written by volunteers, and/or given away for free), we aren't going to get there. The big deafening silence from SIXXS is really unfortunate in that it does actively affect my opinion of IPv6, my willingness to spend time implementing it, pestering my upstream about it, or having my business give a damn about it. Yes I know they're volunteers, but how much does that matter? This same silence you mention is also my personal experience. I work on a open source firewall project in my spare time and found the issue annoying, as such I've decided to forgot Sixxs (dynamic) tunnel support and recommend the free Hurricane Electric tunnelbroker instead. I can spend my time better in getting OpenVPN working with IPv6 then waiting to accumulate kredits(tm). Kind regards, Seth
Re: SIXXS contact
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Andrew Kirch wrote: I'm not complaining, but I would point out that if these free brokers are the public face of IPv6 for many hobbyists (and much of the various software run on/over the internet is written by volunteers, and/or given away for free), we aren't going to get there. The big deafening silence from SIXXS is really unfortunate in that it does actively affect my opinion of IPv6, my willingness to spend time implementing it, pestering my upstream about it, or having my business give a damn about it. Yes I know they're volunteers, but how much does that matter? So you would prefer that they shut down their service rather than provide current level of support? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: World of Warcraft may begin using IPv6 on Tuesday
On 27 Apr 2011, at 00:21, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: Kevin Day toa...@dragondata.com wrote: ... To get ahead of the issue, we've put an IPv6 option into the World of Warcraft interface with patch 4.1. So as IPv6 starts to become more widely available the game will already be prepared to handle the switch over. For most players, the IPv6 checkbox will remain grayed out until IPv6 becomes available in your area. Once available, enabling this feature will require WoW.exe to detect a valid IPv6 connection to the internet on the computer you are playing from. At some point in the future, WoW realm servers will be able to use IPv6 in addition to the current IPv4. If IPv6 is enabled, the game will attempt to establish an IPv6 connection first. If unable to find an IPv6 connection, or if the IPv6 option is disabled/grayed out, the game will make an IPv4 connection instead. This should not cause any connection or performance issues. --- At some point in the future does not sound like we will see much IPv6 traffic immediately, but who knows. Is anyone seeing some traffic that might point to IPv6 adoption on the servers? I arranged a test this morning. With a laptop running 4.1 on a dual-stack network the IPv6 option is greyed out under Network Options. I'm assuming your suggestion that the Blizzard servers are not yet enabled is probably correct, but that the clients now have capability. Would be interesting to know what they consider a 'valid IPv6 connection'. Tim
Re: SIXXS contact
On 27 Apr 2011, at 08:19, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Andrew Kirch wrote: I'm not complaining, but I would point out that if these free brokers are the public face of IPv6 for many hobbyists (and much of the various software run on/over the internet is written by volunteers, and/or given away for free), we aren't going to get there. The big deafening silence from SIXXS is really unfortunate in that it does actively affect my opinion of IPv6, my willingness to spend time implementing it, pestering my upstream about it, or having my business give a damn about it. Yes I know they're volunteers, but how much does that matter? So you would prefer that they shut down their service rather than provide current level of support? I've had very prompt and good replies from SixXS when I've contacted them. Equally students I know who use HE brokers are very happy with their service, e.g. HE have added features in response to feedback. Tim
New IPv6 survey released on labs.ripe.net
Hi There, We just released a new version of the IPv6 CPE survey. After lots of feedback on the previous editions, we are now doing a proper survey. Based on the responses we receive in this survey we will be able to compile a new edition of our matrix and provide some more statistical background on what is happening in the market. Remember we are totally depending on your feedback to continue this work. The more responses we receive, the easier it gets for us to provide regular updates on which CPE are available on the market and how good they are. So if you have an IPv6 capable router or modem in your house, or you are busy testing them. Please take the time to fill out the survey and help other people to find the device that fits their need. Please see https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/ipv6-cpe-survey-please-participate for further details and a link to the survey. Thanks, MarcoH
Re: World of Warcraft may begin using IPv6 on Tuesday
On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:11 AM, Tim Chown wrote: On 27 Apr 2011, at 00:21, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: Kevin Day toa...@dragondata.com wrote: ... To get ahead of the issue, we've put an IPv6 option into the World of Warcraft interface with patch 4.1. So as IPv6 starts to become more widely available the game will already be prepared to handle the switch over. For most players, the IPv6 checkbox will remain grayed out until IPv6 becomes available in your area. Once available, enabling this feature will require WoW.exe to detect a valid IPv6 connection to the internet on the computer you are playing from. At some point in the future, WoW realm servers will be able to use IPv6 in addition to the current IPv4. If IPv6 is enabled, the game will attempt to establish an IPv6 connection first. If unable to find an IPv6 connection, or if the IPv6 option is disabled/grayed out, the game will make an IPv4 connection instead. This should not cause any connection or performance issues. --- At some point in the future does not sound like we will see much IPv6 traffic immediately, but who knows. Is anyone seeing some traffic that might point to IPv6 adoption on the servers? I arranged a test this morning. With a laptop running 4.1 on a dual-stack network the IPv6 option is greyed out under Network Options. I'm assuming your suggestion that the Blizzard servers are not yet enabled is probably correct, but that the clients now have capability. Would be interesting to know what they consider a 'valid IPv6 connection'. Tim Well, with full native IPv6 on ethernet using ARIN direct assigned addresses, it's still grayed out. I'm going to send in a support request and ask why it doesn't work. Owen
Re: SIXXS contact
- Original Message - From: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Andrew Kirch wrote: I'm not complaining, but I would point out that if these free brokers are the public face of IPv6 for many hobbyists (and much of the various software run on/over the internet is written by volunteers, and/or given away for free), we aren't going to get there. The big deafening silence from SIXXS is really unfortunate in that it does actively affect my opinion of IPv6, my willingness to spend time implementing it, pestering my upstream about it, or having my business give a damn about it. Yes I know they're volunteers, but how much does that matter? So you would prefer that they shut down their service rather than provide current level of support? That sounds like the argument he's making, and there's some credit that should be given to it, yes. IPv6 is about, necessarily, to make the turn to being a consumer service. Consumers are *much* less tolerant of shaky implementations of new technologies that they can't see why they would need anyway. I call your attention, for an example, to electronically-assisted voting. There are half a dozen really good reasons why that would be A Good Thing... but the commercially-inspired miserable first 2 or 3 implementations of it have probably absorbed all of the public's tolerance of it for another 10 or 20 years. Cheers, -- jra
Re: New IPv6 survey released on labs.ripe.net
On Apr 27, 2011 5:49 AM, Marco Hogewoning mch-na...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hi There, We just released a new version of the IPv6 CPE survey. After lots of feedback on the previous editions, we are now doing a proper survey. Based on the responses we receive in this survey we will be able to compile a new edition of our matrix and provide some more statistical background on what is happening in the market. Remember we are totally depending on your feedback to continue this work. The more responses we receive, the easier it gets for us to provide regular updates on which CPE are available on the market and how good they are. So if you have an IPv6 capable router or modem in your house, or you are busy testing them. Please take the time to fill out the survey and help other people to find the device that fits their need. Please see https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/ipv6-cpe-survey-please-participate for further details and a link to the survey. Can we get mobile devices added to this? Mobile consumes a large amount of address space and is especially well suited for ipv6-only operations. Unfortunately, the results would be painfully narrow. Now that Nokia no longer supports ipv6, there is no going forward ipv6 support on any mobile device (htc did something special for thunderbolt, it's not an android 3g feature ) It's a very sad state of affairs. Cb Thanks, MarcoH
Re: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any Suggestions as to an Alternative?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 01:56:55PM +0300, Rogelio wrote: On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: Would it turn out to be less expensive to just start a new subscription as if you never had one before? Usually places like this do it by serial number, in which case they don't let you update until you backpay. :) And don't forget the reinstating fees many companies charge too if you try to renew a month or 3 after the previous subscription has expired. -- Regards, Ulf. - Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-865-0204 You can find my resume at: http://www.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html
Carrier Contact
Greetings, Does anyone know who I could contact at Verizon Wireless regarding mis-routing one of my NXX blocks? Off list responses are fine. Thanks, -- Tom Pipes Essex Telcom Inc
Re: Carrier Contact
- Original Message - From: Tom Pipes tom.pi...@t6mail.com Does anyone know who I could contact at Verizon Wireless regarding mis-routing one of my NXX blocks? Amazingly, customer service might be useful. I once called Sprint/Nextel to tell them that my Nextel phone couldn't call the broadcast call-in number for NPR's Talk of the Nation... and it was fixed in about 2 days. That was an 800 number, but I suspect the same principle applies. Have 4 or 5 employees who have VZW service call and report an inability to reach multiple specific -- and different -- numbers in your block, assuming you don't turn up anyone in their Translations group here. You might try the Outages list too; it's membership isn't, I don't think, a strict subset of NANOG's. Cheers, -- jra
Re: New IPv6 survey released on labs.ripe.net
On Apr 27, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Can we get mobile devices added to this? Mobile consumes a large amount of address space and is especially well suited for ipv6-only operations. Unfortunately, the results would be painfully narrow. Now that Nokia no longer supports ipv6, there is no going forward ipv6 support on any mobile device (htc did something special for thunderbolt, it's not an android 3g feature ) It's a very sad state of affairs. For testing purposes, we try to keep a few phones on each major carrier, and I was actually surprised at how many of our randomly purchased phones did support IPv6. T-Mobile: Nokia N900 works great thanks to you(admittedly a dead-end from Nokia, but it works with the same level of shell script and kernel hacking that all N900 users expect) ATT: iPhone 4 (works on wifi, but not over 3G. Can't even be disabled if you don't want v6) Verizon: HTC Thunderbolt (works out of the box) No IPv6 on Sprint, US Cellular or Metro PCS though. They don't have anything that supports IPv6 as far as I can tell. For me as a consumer, I actually had no idea that the Thunderbolt or iPhone were even using IPv6, it's totally automatic and seamless. But I am surprised at how few phones/tablets have any IPv6 support at all, with how late in the game this is. -- Kevin
Re: New IPv6 survey released on labs.ripe.net
Can we get mobile devices added to this? Mobile consumes a large amount of address space and is especially well suited for ipv6-only operations. I would rather make it a separate study. Integrating this with CPE might become messy and it would make the survey really long and complicated. Of course anything is possible. We encourage people to contribute on RIPE Labs with ideas and experiments. I think the first thing to do is to start a thread either here or on labs.ripe.net about what people would like to see from a survey on mobile devices. The CPE survey started of as a result of some work I did for my employer at the time. After a round of vendor selecting I was sitting on a pile of data and decided to publish it. Now I know my way around mobile a bit, but I am not an expert. So guidance on what is relevant and what not or help from somebody who knows more about mobile is more than welcome should we decide to push this forward. Unfortunately, the results would be painfully narrow. Now that Nokia no longer supports ipv6, there is no going forward ipv6 support on any mobile device (htc did something special for thunderbolt, it's not an android 3g feature ) It's a very sad state of affairs. From what I know and seen so far this is indeed the sad situation we are in. At this stage I don't think publishing a survey towards end users would make the difference. But I am more than happy to find myself wrong on this one :) Grtx, MarcoH -- Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again
Re: riverbed steelhead
Anyone out there have experience with Riverbed Steelhead products? Do they improve TCP performance over WAN links? is it worth the price? mike --- James and Eric have done outstanding contributing here. I just wanted to add a tad bit of information leaving out the name brands. Our environment has a large number of these deployed and we have seen business and end user acceptance. From a business perspective, it could be a cost deferral tool within your toolset. Meaning if you are in an environment, which is sensitive to MRC (monthly recurring cost), implementing this technology can help you defer this cost. For example, I had a remote site that was at 95% of a full ds3 in capacity 6 hours of an 8-hour business day, after implementing this technology I was amazed at what we found. This sites utilization was reduced to 40% capacity max, not to mention the reduction we observed at the datacenter headend. We were preparing to increase capacity at this site, that was going to require swapping the WAN device as well as an increase in the MRC for this site and ongoing operational expense. Introduction of WAN optimization was significantly lower in these categories versus the upgrades. On the end user side due to the physical location/latency of this site a few applications was prone to suffer, the developers agreed to fix this would possibly require rewriting of the apps. Nothing more than the introduction of this technology was done and the support calls into the support center went from 100's per month to zero for a few of these applications. One thing that was important to me WAS MAPI encryption and the fact it was reversed engineered. Meaning if Microsoft at some point changed the way MAPI worked in a patch or upgrade you would end up with broken MAPI support and possibly a long runway to fixing it. The other company from my understanding (do not quote me on this YET) is collaborating and possibly working with Microsoft to license such support. I don't think you could go wrong with either brand/company but understanding your environments traffic patterns and its application usage would go a long way in guiding you towards the product for your environment. Good luck
Re: New IPv6 survey released on labs.ripe.net
Mobile v6 folks, On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Kevin Day toa...@dragondata.com wrote: T-Mobile: Nokia N900 works great thanks to you(admittedly a dead-end from Nokia, but it works with the same level of shell script and kernel hacking that all N900 users expect) Add the Nokia N97 to this list, with cellular/wifi support but no tethering, etc. Also I don't think IPv6 support on WiFi is as significant by at least two orders of magnitude as IPv6 support on the cellular interfaces is. A survey would be useful though: Firmware, IPv6 support ( WiFi / cellular ), v4/v6 tethering / hot spot operations, etc. I don't see how it can hurt to provide the middle ground between manufacturers and operators by having such a survey in this regard. Cameron probably has more to add (and some that he can't even if he wanted to, I guess). Marco H, understanding your reasons for wanting to keep CPE survey separate from what Cameron suggested, what's your opinion on doing a clone of the survey? (At some level, having not one but two of these surveys should attract you :) ) Best, Martin
Re: Carrier Contact
I ended up calling 611 on my Verizon phone and they were extremely nice and tried to help, but were unable to take it any further due the the fact that the call appears to route properly. The problem is that the call does route, but to the wrong switch in the wrong LATA and then routes over failover ISUP trunks. The rep tried to escalate it and reported back that there was nothing they could do because the call routes successfully. She agreed that it was going to be very difficult for me to get that to pass through the layers of support. It's very sad that this has to be so complicated. Thanks for the suggestions, Tom On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Tom Pipes tom.pi...@t6mail.com wrote: Greetings, Does anyone know who I could contact at Verizon Wireless regarding mis-routing one of my NXX blocks? Off list responses are fine. Thanks, -- Tom Pipes Essex Telcom Inc
Re: Carrier Contact
- Original Message - From: Tom Pipes tom.pi...@t6mail.com I ended up calling 611 on my Verizon phone and they were extremely nice and tried to help, but were unable to take it any further due the the fact that the call appears to route properly. The problem is that the call does route, but to the wrong switch in the wrong LATA and then routes over failover ISUP trunks. The rep tried to escalate it and reported back that there was nothing they could do because the call routes successfully. She agreed that it was going to be very difficult for me to get that to pass through the layers of support. It's very sad that this has to be so complicated. Oh. You're fixing it. You're gonna have to break it, Tom, to get them to fix it. Sorry. Be liberal in what you accept is fine for operations, but not for debugging. If necessary, set up test numbers, and nullroute just those 10Ds in the wrong destination switch, so that you don't tail-end failover them, and then use *those*. Half a dozen or more, and don't make them look like test numbers. Cheers, -- jra
RE: Carrier Contact
Have you tried looking for a Verizon routing or translations contact in the LERG? This is the official way. -Scott -Original Message- From: Tom Pipes [mailto:tom.pi...@t6mail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 4:43 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Carrier Contact I ended up calling 611 on my Verizon phone and they were extremely nice and tried to help, but were unable to take it any further due the the fact that the call appears to route properly. The problem is that the call does route, but to the wrong switch in the wrong LATA and then routes over failover ISUP trunks. The rep tried to escalate it and reported back that there was nothing they could do because the call routes successfully. She agreed that it was going to be very difficult for me to get that to pass through the layers of support. It's very sad that this has to be so complicated. Thanks for the suggestions, Tom On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Tom Pipes tom.pi...@t6mail.com wrote: Greetings, Does anyone know who I could contact at Verizon Wireless regarding mis-routing one of my NXX blocks? Off list responses are fine. Thanks, -- Tom Pipes Essex Telcom Inc
